I still can't understand how you can judge something you haven't heard. I respect your opinion on the matter, but some definitions like "second-rate LP" or "just another band" are not negative, it's just that we can't know yet because nothing is out.
Many bands achieved greater artistic value even after the original member who made them special to begin with left. Think how Syd Barrett greatly influenced Pink Floyd's roots, but most of their famous repertoire doesn't even include him. Some bands manage to retain what made their music work: AC/DC with Brian Johnson was as good as it was with Bon Scott. I'm not an AC/DC fan, but that's seem to be the general consensus, I think.
Now I get what you're saying, every band is different, and I also don't believe that 2024 Linkin Park will be the new Pink Floyd. I'm not even saying they might be better than what came before. But I am saying that we don't know yet and that it is unfair to preemptively rule out what good might come as "second rate" just because Chester isn't there. No one doubts that his voice and talent was unique, and that the dynamics between him, Mike, and the rest of the band did shape LP's sound. That's always gonna be true. But we could be in front of something equally special, and we shouldn't deny it a chance to be as good as the past just because it's new.
(I don't mean this to be an attack to your opinion, btw. Just explaining my point of view on the matter)